The FoTL Twaddle Thread

[eddiemc]

Interesting thread as it is very similar to what sigma are doing to me.

 

I have taken a different track, I have asked sigma for proof of the debt as I have no agreement with them therefore cannot owe them. I have made a formal complaint about the default on my credit file. Surely they must realise if no money is owed to them how can they register a default? So far they h.ave ignored my letters

 

Sigma are a disgraceful organisation who make money by fooling people.

 

If they purchased the debt from T Mobile which they admitted they did then the debt is paid off. Never be fooled into thinking the debt has been assigned, it has not. It was bought at a fraction of the cost, that's how they make money.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I don't believe you will have any success on this track, Sigma have purchased the account with all the benefits, rights and obligations so you do have a contract with Sigma and YOUR LIABILITY has NOT been paid off, the idea has no merit.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Assignment is the term used when an account is sold under the Law of Property Act 1928.

[renegadeimp]

Good old FOTL muppets.

[eddiemc]

I don't believe you will have any success on this track, Sigma have purchased the account with all the benefits, rights and obligations so you do have a contract with Sigma and YOUR LIABILITY has NOT been paid off, the idea has no merit.

 

Am i right therefore to assume anyone can claim a debt is owed without proof?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Indeed so, just have to hope those inexperienced users are not influenced by this nonsense.

[renegadeimp]

edit wrong post

[eddiemc]

Indeed so, just have to hope those inexperienced users are not influenced by this nonsense.

 

Bit harsh mate how is it nonsense to ask for a company to prove a debt exists?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is a total misconception that because an account is sold to a 3rd party (debt purchaser) that the account holders liability has been satisfied it has not, notice that I use the term account not debt.

Of course everyone must seek to know that the entity attempting to pursue an outstanding amount has the right to do so, this is covered by the creditor and/or DCA/debt purchaser sending ''notice of assignment' to the debtor.

[afcmc1]

For someone who is here to help, you do give of an impression of misleading information.

How can there be a debt when the debt has been paid from the third party that has no legal contract with the person being chased for money, there is no way out of it, there is no contact with T mobile let alone sigma. T mobile will not send the documents of the contract because there isn’t any, sigma is a scare tactic and many people fall for it.

Take sigma to court emparacle

[afcmc1]

How long have you been telling people this, WHAT CONTRACT?? There is no SIGNED OR VERBAL CONTRACT

[ims21]

Oh dear...the FOTL brigade are back.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

How long have you been telling people this, WHAT CONTRACT?? There is no SIGNED OR VERBAL CONTRACT

 

I fully realise that you are unable to grasp a simple concept that the account is sold in total so the purchaser inherits the rights, obligations AND the benefits of that account, benefits = the outstanding debt.

#

My advice is correct where as yours has no merit other than in dream land, this is absolute dangerous nonsense, a CAG member tomtubby has post a court case which damns this FOTL rubbish entirely on an international scale.

So please cease hijacking posts where other users are seeking genuine advice.

 

If you continue in this frame I will ask CAG admin to take action.

Edited May 20, 2013 by BRIGADIER2JCS

[renegadeimp]

I'm still waiting for a FOTL supporter to post ANY valid reasoning why they think their ideas hold any water. They seem to be reliant on an outdated law that has no legal relevance whatsoever.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I'm still waiting for a FOTL supporter to post ANY valid reasoning why they think their ideas hold any water. They seem to be reliant on an outdated law that has no legal relevance whatsoever.

 

Hi Imp did you see tomtubbys post on the Canadian Judges ruling on this rubbish?

[renegadeimp]

Not yet brig. Have a link handy by any chance?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not yet brig. Have a link handy by any chance?

 

if you go to Tomtubbys profile and find all posts its there.

[afcmc1]

But how can you owe a debt that has been paid off from a third party, to be then told you owe to a company that you have no legal contract with

You owe me £100, so you’re saying i can take you to court and i will win, no of course not because there is no agreement in writing or even verbal (which again is too hard to prove)

Can you understand my point? T mobile will not give out the contract or agreement so therefor there is no rights nor any obligations

I do understand that with signed contracts you have small print stating that if for whatever circumstances you fail to pay blah blah a third party organisation will inherit the debt, but with a phone contract there is no contract or agreement available so it does mean there is no debt due to sigma paying this off for the legal entity

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Do take your ridiculous delusions else where , you and again you are totally wrong a mobile phone account is a SERVICE CONTRACT and carries terms and conditions allowing for the similar actions to that which come with a consumer credit agreement.

 

Your silly theories have been blown out by a senior judge in Canada and his pronouncement has international impact so go peddle this claptrap else where and stop disrupting threads here.

[afcmc1]

and how can sigma legally put a default onto a credit file when they are not allowed to?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sigma did not default the account the creditor did all that has been changed is the 'creditor' name on the file as required.

So wrong yet again!!!!

Stop post clocking as well.

[dx100uk]

FoTl twaddler

go play elsewhere

 

dx

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

FoTl twaddler

go play elsewhere

 

dx

 

I think he's bug*ered orf at last:madgrin:

[afcmc1]

SO WHY IS THERE A DEFAULT BUT SIGMA ON MY CREDIT FILE ?????

[afcmc1]

All parties must be given access to all information, and all parties MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION PRIOR TO THE CASE BEING HEARD without this the case is nullified.